Cervical disc replacement (CDR) has emerged as an alternative surgical option to cervical arthrodesis. With increasing numbers of patients and longer follow-ups, complications related to the device and/or aging spine are growing, leaving us with a new challenge in the management and surgical revision of CDR. The purpose of this study is to review the current literature regarding reoperations following CDR and to discuss about the approaches and solutions for the current and future potential complications associated with CDR. The published rates of reoperation (mean, 1.0%; range, 0%-3.1%), revision (mean, 0.2%; range, 0%-0.5%), and removal (mean, 1.2%; range, 0%-1.9%) following CDR are low and comparable to the published rates of reoperation (mean, 1.7%; range; 0%-3.4%), revision (mean, 1.5%; range, 0%-4.7%), and removal (mean, 2.0%; range, 0%-3.4%) following cervical arthrodesis. The surgical interventions following CDR range from the repositioning to explantation followed by fusion or the reimplantation to posterior foraminotomy or fusion. Strict patient selection, careful preoperative radiographic review and surgical planning, as well as surgical technique may reduce adverse events and the need for future intervention. Minimal literature and no guidelines exist for the approaches and techniques in revision and for the removal of implants following CDR. Adherence to strict indications and precise surgical technique may reduce the number of reoperations, revisions, and removals following CDR. Long-term follow-up studies are needed, assessing the implant survivorship and its effect on the revision and removal rates.
Aging ; Arthrodesis ; Arthroplasty ; Foraminotomy ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc ; Patient Selection ; Reoperation ; Replantation ; Spine ; Survival Rate

Methods: Data on demographic characteristics and medical comorbidities of patients who underwent PLF with subsequent readmission were obtained from the HCUP-NRD. The perioperative characteristics that were significantly different between patients readmitted with and without an active diagnosis of IBO were identified with bivariate analysis for both 30-day and 90-day readmissions. The significant characteristics were then included in a multivariate analysis to identify those that were independently associated with 30- day and 90-day readmissions. Results: Drug abuse (odds ratio [OR], 4.00), uncomplicated diabetes (OR, 2.06), having Medicare insurance (OR, 1.65), age 55–64 years (OR, 2.42), age 65–79 years (OR, 2.77), and age >80 years (OR, 3.87) were significant risk factors for 30-day readmission attributable to IBO after a PLF procedure. Conclusions Of the several preoperative risk factors identified for readmission with IBO after PLF surgery, drug abuse had the strongest association and was likely to be the most clinically relevant factor. Physicians and care teams should understand the risks of opioid-based pain management regimens, attempt to manage pain with a multimodal approach, and minimize the opioid use.